“Picking up girls” skills and “long-term relationships” skills

I’ve said this in some different places but not headlined with it: “Picking up girls” skills and “long-term relationships” skills overlap, but there’s a lot of non-overlap too. For picking up chicks, approach anxiety, initial comments, flirting skills, sheer physicality, fashion sense, logistics, dealing with shit tests, etc. are paramount. Guys should practice and build up those skills. For long-term relationships, emotional compatibility, lifestyle, money/money philosophy, ability to maintain sexual heat, long-term life goals, etc. are much more important. Guys can be good at both but there’s a lot of distinction between the two and if you specialize in being a player you will likely hone the early skills and forget the later ones even exist.

If you are a young guy without a lot of experience with women you should concentrate pretty much entirely on short and medium term relationship skills. If you are an older guy you will have to evaluate your life course for yourself and think about what you seek over time.

Guys who are truly specialized in short term relationships may lose the idea that in the medium or long term, some of the “game” aspects go away… or change. Yes, women will still shit test over the long term, but sometimes the issues are real issues and not shit tests. Real issues that need to be addressed. Sometimes they are comfort tests, a topic that doesn’t come up much because I think most guys don’t get to that stage. Emotionally healthy and secure chicks will have needs that they will bring up, and consistently not meeting those needs will cause the woman to look elsewhere… if she is damaged she may become more attracted to adrenaline, drama, and not having those needs met.

I have made this mistake before.

Continue reading ““Picking up girls” skills and “long-term relationships” skills”

“The mom having an affair because her husband did first”

The Brooklyn Mom Having an Affair Because Her Husband Had One First. This piece illustrates the dangers of affairs and non-monogamy. I see guys online suggesting that it’s okay for a guy to have a quiet side piece while his main woman cares for the kids and runs the house.

That is of course possible. For a few guys, feasible. For most guys, not much…. requires too much money, time, dedication, etc. Too easy to get caught today.

If you do it, she will likely want to do it too. And when she does it, this can lead to alienation of affection as well as paternity uncertainty. If the guy in this story thinks the next kid in his, well, he might be wrong.

Continue reading ““The mom having an affair because her husband did first””

Tough conversations. Downside of being known as a player

Tough conversations this weekend. I’m having some challenges making some of the changes I want to make, and I am suffering some right now because I have been a player for a long time and have a player reputation and a lot of player instincts. The player instincts don’t serve me well in trying to develop a longer-term relationship with a woman who has a more secure attachment style and who knows what she wants.

A word on reputation and what chicks are looking for. Players tend to filter out family-oriented chicks. TD Daygame has been talking about this on Twitter, although I don’t think he has a blog anymore, so I can’t link a canonical post on the subject. But chicks who want monogamy and families do exist…. they are the ones who are not intersted in guys who give off player vibes. Some of them are also very pretty. You can tell who they are because they usually have a small number of lifetime sex partners, usually don’t have sex immediately, and typically find guys who are attractive, have their shit together, and are career-oriented. Extremely sexually adventurous chicks make for interesting and fun stories… extremely family-oriented chicks don’t, usually. I am thinking of two chicks in particular I know who were (and are) very pretty and followed this pattern. Often they will compromise somewhat on looks and extroversion to get family-oriented and monogamous. They often find long-term guys in their 20s and often work jobs that give them access to guys with good earnings and family orientation.

Obviously there are many family-oriented, mostly monogamous chicks who will have one or two flings in their lives… if you catch them at the right time with the right game you may get with one of them. But for the most part these chicks keep their wilder impulses under control and filter guys for being better dads and providers. If a woman is looking for this she is not going to like players or guys who signal player. This is the kind of woman who, if you cold approach her, will say “no” and move on. She’s probably never been on Tinder or, if she has, she quit it in disgust. She’s not doing the things all the Red Pill guys complain about in sexually active women, but she’s also looking for a guy commensurate to her in value, so low value guys are going to be just about sexually invisible to her. I think a lot of online Red Pill guys are low value and thrashing about women because it’s almost impossible to overcome being low value, kind of like fat chicks complaining about men. For fat chicks, their number one problem in accessing higher-value men is being fat, and pretty much nothing they do without changing their diets and movement habits will improve their situation.

Reputation matters and chicks are going to judge you on, like you judge them on it (if you know them). Continue reading “Tough conversations. Downside of being known as a player”

“It is not your job to match your boyfriend’s libido.” Yes, it is.

At least the guy in “It is not your job to match your boyfriend’s libido” was not stupid enough to marry this woman, because his relationship with her is likely OVER. Unfortunately, the woman dispensing advice to another woman is just reinforcing the bullshit view that it’s a great idea for a woman to repeatedly refuse her man sex… which is going to lead to the end of the relationship.

Soon, she likely to be doing 100% of the housework, because the man is going to leave (if he has any balls… maybe he doesn’t).

A man, however, is only as good as his other options, and this mainstream press piece reminds us that in today’s world we must always have and be cultivating other options. You cannot give up. There is no coasting. It may hurt to imagine that, but it’s true.

If the genders had been reversed, it would of course be the man’s responsibility to match the woman’s libido, and, if he cannot, it would be her right to seek satisfaction elsewhere.

To give the woman her due, it’s reasonable not to want to be routinely woken up for sex in the middle of the night if you’re not into that kind of thing… but a reasonable woman would also say, “Instead, I want to have sex in these times and ways, and I’m making it work for both of us.”

The more game I’ve needed the worse the relationship has been

I was reading “Honest observations after eight years in the game” and got to thinking: the more game I’ve needed to get a particular girl, or the more I’ve had to run game on her, the worse the relationship has been. The ones who are bitchy, constantly testing, and most difficult can be good in bed but the relationships themselves are never the best. Those women are only good as friends with benefits, and even then the “friends” part stretches the definition of the word.

The ones who just wanted me and the sex and let everything lead into that have been the most pleasant to deal with and over time the best in bed. Over time this has become my own test: How much game did I need to get this woman? The more game, the more likely I am to jettison her or keep her in a distant rotation.

It’s amazing to me that many women think playing hard to get and being unpleasant to be around is somehow a way to get and keep a man. That’s a good way to get some casual sex and a terrible way to get a relationship. Over time, the guys who persist most will be the ones with no other options. Guys with options will find a woman who’s more pleasant to be around, and pleasant to be around starts with the very first interaction.

Bike Girl was pleasant when I met her, pleasant in texting, pleasant on the first date, and has been pleasant since. So was the gorgeous 19-year-old I met a couple years ago and dated for almost two. Most of the relationships I’ve ended prematurely ended because the girl was the opposite. The more “game,” I’ve needed, the more I realized (usually sooner) that the girl couldn’t and shouldn’t be anything more than an FWB. The more I’ve felt “tested,” the more I’ve known the girl is no good or no good for me. Next!

No wonder relationships in the U.S. are fucked.

This isn’t an “actionable” post and doesn’t matter much for guys who want to hit ‘n’ run. But guys who are still being chosen, rather than the choosers, should know that your whole world changes when you do more choosing. You learn a lot quickly.